What makes mountains, forests, and other elements "fit" together, or not?

[Chick]

This is a discussion that started in the Finished Maps thread when I posted this map:

Telah by Cornelia Yoder.jpg

Comments included the following:

Good map! The mountains are great as is the border. However, I have to second Obbehobbe, that the forest isn't completely matching the overall style.

Great map Chick! It looks like a really huge world.
Concerning the mountain and forest not fitting together point, I don't know what bothers the other, however, I can say what I think is the problem. With the forest, you use a kind of "texture" based style without any prominent line-work, that fits great with all the other elements of the map because they follow the same style. All except the mountains. The mountains use a more sharp, line heavy style, that isn't seen anywhere else on the map. You use this technique with all the mountains except 'The Crucible' (by Sentinel Keep), where it appears like you almost only rely on colors, and that one mountain fits the rest of the map much better. So in conclusion, I would say what bothers me is that the mountains are drawn in a completely different style then the rest of the map.
Hope that was a good answer without sounding to harsh
Cheers,
Tainotim

I like the map, but I don't think that the forest fit with rest of the map. And, I would also like the chunks of ice to follow the whole icy shory and not just the part in the middle, aaaaand the northern parts of the brown land should maybe be more white/cold to better blend with the chunks of ice!

Nice work on this Chick!
For me, the forests are fine and it's more the mountains that don't fit really well with the rest. Just a question of view, I suppose.
As others said, I really like your colors choice on this.

Yoikes! I would really like to sort this out some more. Since this is the "Finished" maps section, and I've already delivered the final map to the client, I think I'll repost it in the WIP thread and move the discussion there.
I'll try a couple of variations on mountains and forests and maybe I can get a handle on this issue, if you guys would continue to critique it. Constructive criticism is always welcome.

I'd sure like the opinions of others, and maybe it will turn educational for others as well as me.

So the question is, can we pin down a bit about what makes elements "fit" together or not?

Cheers,
Cornelia

[Obbehobbe]

Well, I think the forest use a realistic texture, while the rest is cartoon, if you know what I mean. I think it's basically what makes it not fit together!

[Chick]

So for the first try, here is the same map with just the mountain lines softened to match what I had done on the volcano. I don't even remember why I softened the lines on the volcano, but tainotim's comment certainly does point out a significant difference, and maybe that will help.

Telah Fit Test A.jpg

What do you think, does that help the "fit"?

[Chick]

Well, I think the forest use a realistic texture, while the rest is cartoon, if you know what I mean. I think it's basically what makes it not fit together!

So does it need some black circularish marks on the forests, or to completely change the texture for a variegated green color?

[Obbehobbe]

So does it need some black circularish marks on the forests, or to completely change the texture for a variegated green color?

Yes and/or yes! Keep in mind, this is my opinion, and I don't recall myself some kind of expert!

[ascanius]

I think first the forests texture is too busy compared to the rest of the map, it really pulls the eye towards the forest too much I think. Maybe a less busy texture, the same one blurred maybe. The other thing is your montains don't really flow well from the land texture to the solid color of the mountains, though this is a very small detail that it works just as well has how it is now. I do like the hills just south of Lakeland I think they work well because they have a good transition.

[Midgardsormr]

So what exactly is the texture on the land? Is that the surface of a page? Is it meant to indicate the surface of the land? Why would the mountains be smoother than the flatlands? Softening the lines definitely helped. Maybe mixing that sandstone texture into the mountains would go the rest of the way toward solving the mismatch.

Taking a larger view of the question, there are a few things that are often overlooked when making a composite image of this kind. I'll go through a few of them and try to point out where they could be improved on this map.

The black levels: What should be the darkest black? Does that black level match across the entire image? On this map, I'm guessing that the signature block and the labels on the ocean are probably intended to be the baseline for black. That's an evaluation based on what I think are the contrast levels you intend. So the compass rose and the border are a little too dark. Their very stark black makes those other elements appear gray. Should there be any tint to the blacks? A very slight warm or cool cast can adjust the feel of the map without actually adding color to it. Be careful, though. Tinting blacks and grays is best done with a very light touch.

Opposite to that are the white levels: It is not uncommon for labels, icons or ornamentation to be a pure white which is present nowhere else, making them feel like they're "stuck on" or even hovering over the rest of the image. You very rarely see a perfect white in the world. And like the blacks, very slightly tinting the brights can change the character of the map. In this case, the border is again the culprit. I'd say try to match its white levels to the ice. Maybe just a touch brighter, but not much. I'll go ahead and mention the yellow border markers here, too, since they're kind of in the same category. They're a little too yellow, being the most saturated element on the map.

Sharpness is the next thing I usually check. You've already addressed that here by softening those mountains. It's usually more of a problem on maps where people have used brushes or stamps from different sources. It commonly crops up in labeling, too, though. I'd say your labels are just on the cusp of being too sharp, but since the maps as a whole is pretty clean it works here. The border could use a very slight blur, too. Its detail level is too fine to match everything else.

Noise/grain: A mismatch in noise intensity, size or color can weaken a good composite. I'll admit that you have to be pretty eagle-eyed to be able to spot what's wrong, though, and it's usually only a problem if you're dealing with video. Still, it's something to be aware of. Looking at noise is a good way to spot Photoshop touch-ups and fakes, by the way. I think that perception of a lack of noisiness is what's hurting the mountains. They lack the high-frequency information that almost everything else on the map has. Sorry, I guess I've said that twice, now.

I'm going to rush through the rest of this because I am out of time.

Line weight and quality: Another common failure on maps that have brushes taken from different sources.

Light direction: Make sure shadows are all cast in the same direction and that highlights are opposite shadows.

Color harmony: Similar levels of saturation, colors that work together, and overall an overall color cast that is consistent. For this map, the orange cast of the land complements the blue-gray of the sea and ice quite nicely. You could go either direction—cool or warm—in your darks to enhance the mood of the piece.

There are probably a few other things that I could talk about, but that covers most of what I see around these parts.

[RevGunn]

I personally think it looks good. Maybe the softening on the mountains helped a bit. The only part that jumps out at me at all as "different" is the ice bergs up north. I think the second version flows really well. Its attractive, conveys information...